2012-2016 capital improvement plan

2012-2016 Capital Improvement Plan City of Rye, New York

Planning and Funding For City Projects For Fiscal Years Ending December 31,

2012 through 2016

August 2011

Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2016

City of Rye, New York i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I – Overview iii Section II – Tables of Project and Vehicle Funding Requirements and Sources Section III – Project Worksheets

Building Projects

Police/Court Renovation Study ...................................................................................................... 1

City Hall – Carpet & Floor Replacement ....................................................................................... 2

City Hall Fan Coil Units ................................................................................................................. 3

City Hall – Hanging Ceiling Replacement ..................................................................................... 4

City Hall – HVAC Air Handler Replacement ................................................................................ 5

DPW – Fuel Tank Replacement ..................................................................................................... 6

Nature Center Bathrooms ............................................................................................................... 7

Interior Paint – Firehouses.............................................................................................................. 8

DPW Roof Replacement................................................................................................................. 9

Drainage Projects

LaSalle Avenue Drainage ............................................................................................................. 10

Forest to Stonycrest Road Drain................................................................................................... 11

Old Milton Road Drainage Improvement ..................................................................................... 12

Red Maple Swamp Drainage Study.............................................................................................. 13

Hix Park Drainage Study .............................................................................................................. 14

Colby Avenue Drainage................................................................................................................ 15

Ellsworth Street Drainage............................................................................................................. 16

Martin Road Drainage .................................................................................................................. 17


City of Rye, New York ii

Flood Mitigation Projects

Bowman Avenue Sluice Gate ....................................................................................................... 18

Bowman Flood Improvements - Upper Pond Resizing ............................................................... 19

Sewer Projects

Hewlett Avenue Pump Station...................................................................................................... 20

Brevoot Lane Force Main ............................................................................................................. 21

Stuyvesant Avenue Pump Station Pump Replacement................................................................. 22

Dearborn Pump Station Pump Replacement ................................................................................ 23

Locust Avenue Sewer Siphon Replacement ................................................................................. 24

Transportation Projects

Annual Sidewalk/Curbing Program.............................................................................................. 25

Annual Street Resurfacing ............................................................................................................ 26

Boston Post Road Retaining Wall ................................................................................................ 27

Theodore Fremd/Blind Brook Retaining Wall ............................................................................. 28

Purchase Street Roundabout ......................................................................................................... 29

Boston Post Road Repaving ......................................................................................................... 30

CBD - Purchase Street Reconstruction........................................................................................ 31

CBD – Smith Street Reconstruction ............................................................................................. 32

CBD – Elm/Smith Intersection Improvement .............................................................................. 33

Purchase/Fremd & Purdy Signal Replacement............................................................................. 34

Locust Avenue Bridge .................................................................................................................. 35

Nature Center Bridge Pressure Grouting ...................................................................................... 36

Orchard Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation ........................................................................................ 37

Central Avenue Bridge Reconstruction ........................................................................................ 38

MTA Parking Lot Improvements ................................................................................................. 39


City of Rye, New York iii

First/Second Street Parking Lot.................................................................................................... 40

CBD – School/Purdy Parking Lot (Car Park 5)............................................................................ 41

Milton Cemetery Bridge ............................................................................................................... 42

Street Light Replacement.............................................................................................................. 43

5 Corners Intersection Study......................................................................................................... 44

Fireman’s Memorial Intersection Study ....................................................................................... 45

Osborn School Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements....................................................... 46

Recreation Projects

Expand Maintenance Garage ........................................................................................................ 47

Gagliardo Park Restrooms & Park Improvements ....................................................................... 48

Upper Picnic Shelter Replacement ............................................................................................... 49

Recreation Park Improvements..................................................................................................... 50

Nursery Field Rehabilitation......................................................................................................... 51

Disbrow Park Improvement.......................................................................................................... 52

Damiano Center HVAC................................................................................................................ 53

Disbrow Park Landscape and Signage Improvements ................................................................. 54

Upgrade Tennis Lighting .............................................................................................................. 55


City of Rye, New York iv

SECTION I – OVERVIEW Introduction The City’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies projects and acquisitions of infrastructure, buildings, land, facilities, vehicles and equipment for the years ending December 31, 2012 through 2016. The CIP is organized into three sections. Section I includes an overview of the CIP. Section II includes tables that identify each project, its funding requirement for each year and source of funds. Section III includes worksheets that provide detailed information on each project including, a project description, estimated costs, priority considerations, sources of funding by year, need and potential issues and operating cost considerations. Purpose of the Capital Improvements Plan The CIP is a multi-year plan, not a multi-year budget. It is not a commitment to fund requested projects, but rather a schedule of public physical improvements and possible funding sources. Reading this CIP, it is important to focus on the funding, priority, importance, and the impact of undertaking or not undertaking the projects included in this report. The existence and condition of infrastructure and major capital assets has a direct bearing on the City’s ability to provide services needed or desired by the community, and the perception of the community on its quality of life. These capital assets have a very real impact on property values and the community’s ability to attract and retain residents and businesses. The CIP is an effective tool of advising the City Council, other agencies and the public of the City’s capital and infrastructure needs. The CIP comprehensively identifies projects so that they can be properly coordinated, staffed and future funding needs can be anticipated. Project Selection The CIP is the culmination of an annual process that seeks the input of City departments to identify what projects are needed to maintain a level of service expected by the community. This process includes establishing priorities, developing estimates, and determining possible funding sources. As with any plan, especially one covering a multi-year period, the projects, their requirements and resources, and even the need for the projects may change substantially over time. These changes are the impetus to update and redevelop the CIP on an annual basis. Projects included in the CIP typically have a value exceeding $15,000. Projects considered a reoccurring operating expense are generally not included in the CIP. Projects must also be reasonably anticipated to be needed or occur within the five-year planning period, however in some cases an identified project may occur beyond that time frame. Projects for the City Boat Basin and Rye Golf Club are not included in the CIP. These operations are enterprise funds that


City of Rye, New York v

provide for capital improvements in their annual budgets, the costs of which are supported by user fees and enterprise fund reserves. Project Priorities Each project in the CIP was assigned one of four priority classifications. Table 1 identifies each priority classification and its description.

TABLE 1: CIP Project Priority Classifications and Description

Classification Description

Urgent High-priority projects that should be done if at all possible; a special effort should be made to find sufficient funding for all of the projects in this group.

High High-priority projects that should be done as funding becomes available.

Moderate Worthwhile projects to be considered if funding is available; may be deferred to a subsequent year.

Low Low-priority projects; desirable but not essential. Source: APA PAS Report Number 442, Capital Improvement Programs: Linking Budgeting and Planning, Robert A. Browyer, AICP, January 1993.

A number of criteria are considered in assigning a priority classification to a project. The extent to which a project met or exceeded these criteria contributed to its priority classification. Each project worksheet located in Section III of the CIP identifies whether the project:

Is required replace or repair a deteriorated facility; Is required to address a public safety need or legal mandate, such as a Federal or State

law or legal liability to the City; Is required as part of a systematic replacement or would result in an operational

efficiency or cost savings to the City; Would result in resource conservation or provide an environmental quality benefit; Is required to meet a new or expanded facility or program need; Is consistent with formal plans or identified polices of the City; and Has an identified and available funding source.

Funding Requirements and Sources Project cost estimates are based on the judgment of professional staff and/or estimates provided by external sources. Resources to fund each project include currently funded amounts (amounts provided in previous budgets), revenues and/or fund balance, debt, and grants and aid. Any anticipated grants or aid are first applied, followed by what is determined to be the appropriate mix of current funds and debt. Consideration is given to the expense of the project, its estimated life, and the short and long-term impact on property taxes. The CIP assumes that City debt levels should be kept to a minimum. Debt is therefore a recommended source of funding for


City of Rye, New York vi

capital projects that are both very expensive (generally exceeding $250,000 in value) and have long useful lives (generally in excess of 10 years). Revenue sources are limited and subject to change. The City’s financial policies state that the unreserved, undesignated fund balance should be maintained in the General Fund equal to 5% of operating expenditures. In addition, the amount of retained earnings available in the Building and Vehicle Fund to fund projects is essentially limited to unrestricted net assets. While City records are maintained on a current basis, a more appropriate picture of the fiscal year develops as the City budget is developed in the third and fourth quarters, whereupon actual funding availability for projects in the forthcoming year is projected. The City’s ability to fund projects with general obligation bonds issued by the City is subject to state law and limits set forth in Section C21-9 of the City Charter. That section of the City Charter allows a certain level of bonding that can be authorized by City Council vote alone; an additional amount that can be authorized by City Council vote subject to permissive referendum, and certain purposes that are exempt from Charter limits. A public referendum is required for the authorization of all other bonded debt. The City Finance Department will likely use bond anticipation notes as a strategy to fund short term cash flow needs related to capital projects. CIP Overview and Highlights The CIP identifies over 50 capital improvement projects classified into six different project types. The total cost of these projects is approximately $39.8 million over the five-year planning period. An additional $4.2 million in vehicle and equipment needs are also identified. Table 2 provides a summary of total required funding by project type by year.

TABLE 2: CIP Funding Requirements by Project Type and Year: 2012-2016

Project Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016+ Total

Required

Building $ 167,000 $ 212,000 $ 87,000 $ 2,127,000 $ 185,000 $ 2,778,000 Drainage $ 210,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ 370,000 $ 210,000 $ 1,040,000 Flood Mitigation $ 2,086,260 $ 500,000 $10,000,000 $ - $ - $12,586,260 Sewer $ 497,273 $ 300,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ 1,037,273 Transportation $ 4,460,000 $ 3,365,000 $ 3,315,000 $ 2,620,000 $ 3,175,000 $16,935,000 Recreation $ 140,200 $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 1,799,500 $ 665,000 $ 5,604,700 Total $ 7,560,733 $ 4,377,000 $16,772,000 $ 7,036,500 $ 4,235,000 $39,981,233 Vehicles & Equipment $ 293,000 $ 962,700 $ 715,000 $ 595,000 $ 1,645,000 $ 4,210,700

The fiscal outlook does not look promising for capital projects. Funding through the City’s annual budget (i.e. undesignated fund balance) has historically been a significant source of funding for capital projects. Those funds have become extremely limited. Federal and state funding for projects continues to decline and is not expected to be a significant or reliable source


City of Rye, New York vii

of funding. In addition, the recently enacted tax cap legislation may make it more difficult for the City to fund capital through property taxes. In light of these fiscal realities this CIP defers projects to years 2014-2016 to the maximum extent possible. In 2012 and 2013, proposed use of general revenue is extremely limited (a combined $2.8 M) and is reserved for projects that have been identified as an “urgent” or “high” priority in the CIP.

TABLE 3: CIP Funding Sources by Project Type: 2012-2016

Project Type General

Revenues Debt Grants & Aid Total Sources

Building $ 778,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,778,000 Drainage $ 480,000 $ 210,000 $ 350,000 $ 1,040,000 Flood Mitigation $ - $ 322,000 $ 12,264,260 $ 12,586,260 Sewer $ 1,037,273 $ 78,137 $ 341,000 $ 1,037,273 Transportation $ 6,020,000 $ 2,490,000 $ 8,425,000 $ 16,935,000 Recreation $ 374,700 $ 180,000 $ 5,050,000 $ 5,604,700 Total $ 8,270,836 $ 5,280,137 $ 26,430,260 $ 39,981,233 Vehicles & Equipment $ 4,210,700 $ - $ - $ 4,210,700

Other projects over the next two years in this CIP are carry over projects from prior years that have received grant awards, including Bowman Avenue Sluice Gate ($1.9 M), Theodore Fremd/Blind Brook Retaining Wall ($1.4 M), Central Avenue Bridge Construction ($1.8 M) and the Hewlett Avenue Pump Station ($347,000). All of these projects are either in-design or under construction and are expected to be completed or started in 2012. Of the $7.5 M 2012 projects, more than $5.4 M of the funding is expected to come from grants and aid. In 2013, just under $1 M of funding is expected from non-City sources, while in 2014, $14.9 M of the total $16.7 M, more than 89%, required for projects is expected from non-City sources, including a potential grant for the $10 M Upper Pond Resizing flood mitigation project at Bowman Avenue.

Shared Roadways Initiatives Over the past year, the City has been active in identifying needs and projects that improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. In its June 15, 2011 report the Rye Shared Roadways Committee (RSRC) indentified a number of projects to improve traffic and pedestrian circulation including projects at the Fireman’s Circle on Milton Road and the Grace Church Street/Midland Avenue/Manursing Avenue intersection. Both of these projects have been added to this year’s CIP, but due to their “moderate” priority ranking and limited funding, are not proposed for any activity until 2014. Prior CIP projects endorsed by the RSRC report are preserved in this CIP including repairing the Boston Post Road retaining wall adjacent to the Loudon Woods neighborhood, Rye train station improvements and the Theodore Fremd/Purdy/Purchase intersection improvements. Other projects recommended by the RSRC including the re-striping of Forest Avenue and other sidewalk and crosswalk improvements around schools are not specifically identified


City of Rye, New York viii

as separate projects in the CIP, but rather noted in the City’s annual paving and sidewalk program, which is considered their likely source of funding. Also identified in the RSRC report is the need to continue to evaluate traffic and pedestrian safety conditions after the August 2010 completion of changes in the travel lanes (i.e. “diet”) at the Sonn Drive/Boston Post Road intersection. In anticipation of this need the CIP identifies potential design and implementation of additional improvements (including the installation of a traffic signal) if deemed warranted and if funding is available.

Central Business District Improvements

The CIP includes funding for the design of projects in the Central Business District (CBD) including improvements at the Purchase/Smith/Elm intersection, Smith and Purchase Street re-constructions and improvements at the Theodore Fremd/Purdy/Purchase intersection. These improvements would be similar to those currently being implemented at the Locust/Purchase intersection. Design funding is recommended in 2012 only if construction is expected in 2013 so that detailed costs estimates can be established and the community can participate in a planning/design process to identify specific project needs and requirements. If there is no expectation that these projects will be funded for construction in 2013 from a bond/debt then the design of these improvements can be deferred. Sewer Improvements

The CIP also includes a “new” project that would abandon the Locust Avenue sewer siphon and replace it with a new and more reliable sewer connection. Previously, this project was included as part of the Locust Avenue Bridge improvement. The condition of the siphon has deteriorated and is requiring increasing maintenance calls by the City’s Public Works staff. This is not a project that can wait for failure and is considered one of the highest priority projects in the CIP. The sewer siphon connects sewage from all of the Central Business District to the County sewer trunk line located in Blind Brook. The project will avoid the need to fund temporary pumps and sewer lines if the siphon fails during the year and cannot be repaired. The CIP proposes matching funds for the EPA grant the City was awarded for the necessary upgrades to the Hewlett Avenue pump station. The project cost has been reduced from previous CIPs, reflecting the elimination of the required force main component, which was completed in the summer of 2010. Recreation Projects

Like many area communities, Rye’s demand for athletic and recreational fields continues to grow. Land for new recreational fields in Rye is very limited and expensive. This year’s CIP identifies two new projects to convert the natural grass fields at Recreation Park and Disbrow Park to turf. A third project at Nursery Field would improve drainage


City of Rye, New York ix

conditions. These projects will allow for greater use of existing facilities and reduce lost playing time due to inclement weather. These improvements will help meet continued growing recreational demand from a variety of public and private recreational and school user groups in the community.

TABLE 4: CIP Funding Requirements by Project Type, Year, and Source: 2012-2016

Project Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016+ Total

Required

Building $ 167,000 $ 212,000 $ 87,000 $ 2,127,000 $ 185,000 $ 2,778,000 General Rev. $ 167,000 $ 212,000 $ 87,000 $ 127,000 $ 185,000 $ 778,000 Grants & Aid $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Debt $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,000,000

Drainage $ 210,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ 370,000 $ 210,000 $ 1,040,000 General Rev. $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 20,000 $ 210,000 $ 480,000 Grants & Aid $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ - $ 350,000

Debt $ 210,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210,000

Flood Mitigation $ 2,086,260 $ 500,000 $10,000,000 $ - $ - $12,586,260 General Rev. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Grants & Aid $ 1,764,260 $ 500,000 $10,000,000 $ - $ - $12,264,260

Debt $ 322,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 322,000

Sewer $ 497,273 $ 300,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ 1,037,273 General Rev. $ 228,136 $ 150,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ 618,136 Grants & Aid $ 191,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 341,000

Debt $ 78,137 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 78,137

Transportation $ 4,460,000 $ 3,365,000 $ 3,315,000 $ 2,620,000 $ 3,175,000 $16,935,000 General Rev. $ 565,000 $ 1,430,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 2,260,000 $ 315,000 $ 6,020,000 Grants & Aid $ 3,535,000 $ 285,000 $ 1,385,000 $ 360,000 $ 2,860,000 $ 8,425,000

Debt $ 360,000 $ 1,650,000 $ 480,000 $ - $ - $ 2,490,000

Recreation $ 140,200 $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 1,799,500 $ 665,000 $ 5,604,700 General Rev. $ 140,200 $ - $ - $ 19,500 $ 215,000 $ 374,700 Grants & Aid $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 450,000 $ 5,050,000

Debt $ - $ - $ - $ 180,000 $ - $ 180,000

Total $ 7,560,733 $ 4,377,000 $16,772,000 $ 7,036,500 $ 4,235,000 $39,981,233 General Rev. $ 1,100,336 $ 1,792,000 $ 1,907,000 $ 2,546,500 $ 925,000 $ 8,270,836 Grants & Aid $ 5,490,260 $ 935,000 $14,385,000 $ 2,310,000 $ 3,310,000 $26,430,260

Debt $ 970,137 $ 1,650,000 $ 480,000 $ 2,180,000 $ - $ 5,280,137

Other Capital Considerations Historically, the City’s CIP has not identified or quantified the capital needs of City enterprise funds and Rye Town Park. As resources become more constrained, it’s important that these capital needs be better understood because they have financial, operational and other impacts on the City. The City enterprise funds, including the City Boat Basin and Rye Golf Club, have capital needs not previously been identified in the CIP because these projects were typically funded by user


City of Rye, New York x

fees. It is expected that Rye Golf will continue to support its capital needs and its obligation through 2018 to pay off the Whitby Castle renovation bonds without the need for supplemental funding from the City’s annual budget. The City Boat Basin will likely need to fund another dredge within the next five to ten years to maintain its current operational levels at an estimated cost of $3 million. Increasing environmental restrictions on open water disposal of dredge material has significantly increased dredging disposal costs. Federal funding for dredging has not been available for recreational marinas for years, and funding for commercial harbors is increasingly difficult to obtain. Upland disposal of dredge material is cost prohibitive and logistically challenging given the limited land for dewatering. There are 400 boaters at the boat basin and 150 of those are small boats and kayaks. This small number of boaters cannot raise enough funding to cover the estimated $3 million dredging costs within the next five to ten years. Fees and charges can’t be too high since the Boat Basin has to remain competitive with the prices charged by other area marinas. If grants or other new sources of revenue are not identified, the boat basin will not be able to maintain its current level of operation, or the Basin will require supplemental funding from the City. Rye Town Park has identified approximately $14 million in capital needs to its facilities over the next five years. Their capital needs are of particular concern because the City is responsible for approximately 40% of all capital expenditures at Rye Town Park. Capital projects are approved by the Rye Town Park Commission, not the City Council. The City will need to diligently work with the Rye Town Park Commission regarding the need, cost and timing of required capital improvements. If not, the City may not have funds available to cover its capital obligations to the Park while still preserving the City’s already limited capital program. The Rye City School District has an impact on the City’s capital program. Their facilities generate demand for off-site improvements such as traffic and pedestrian safety, parking and other infrastructure improvements that are predominately funded by the City. There has been recent discussion of the School District potentially funding additional building improvements. Coordination between the City and School District is essential so that potential capital needs and funding sources can be identified. Conclusion The Capital Improvement Plan is a document that provides the City Council, City management, and the entire community with an opportunity to plan for the longer term while budgeting for the short term. The project requirements and resources included in the first year of the plan, designed to provide guidance for the forthcoming year’s budget, will most likely differ from the projects that appear in the budget that is adopted in December by the City Council. This Capital Improvement Plan, presented to the City Council and the public at a public meeting on August 10, 2011, seeks the input and consideration of the City Council and the public. Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome as the City continues to identify and modify projects so that they best meet the needs of the community.

Section II: Tables of Project Funding Requirements and Sources

TotalCapital Project Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016+ Required

BUILDING PROJECTSPolice/Court Renovation Study 35,000$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ 2,035,000$ City Hall - Carpet & Floor Replacement -$ -$ -$ 65,000$ -$ 65,000$ City Hall - Fan Coil Units 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ -$ 48,000$ City Hall - Hanging Ceiling Replacement -$ -$ 75,000$ -$ -$ 75,000$ City Hall - HVAC Air Handler Replacement 120,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ 220,000$ DPW - Fuel Tank Replacement -$ -$ -$ -$ 185,000$ 185,000$ Nature Center Bathrooms -$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$ Interior Paint - Firehouses -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ DPW Roof Replacement -$ 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$

Sub-Total Building Projects: 167,000$ 212,000$ 87,000$ 2,127,000$ 185,000$ 2,778,000$ General Revenues 167,000$ 212,000$ 87,000$ 127,000$ 185,000$ 778,000$

Grants & Aid -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Debt -$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$

DRAINAGE PROJECTSLaSalle Avenue Drain -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Forest to Stonycrest Road Drain -$ -$ 35,000$ 350,000$ -$ 385,000$ Old Milton Road Drainage Improvement 210,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 210,000$ Red Maple Swamp Drainage Study -$ -$ 15,000$ -$ -$ 15,000$ Hix Park Drainage Study -$ -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ Colby Avenue Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ 120,000$ 120,000$ Ellsworth Road Drainage -$ -$ -$ -$ 90,000$ 90,000$ Martin Road Drainage -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$

Sub-Total Drainage Projects: 210,000$ -$ 250,000$ 370,000$ 210,000$ 1,040,000$ General Revenues -$ -$ 250,000$ 20,000$ 210,000$ 480,000$

Grants & Aid -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ -$ 350,000$ Debt 210,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 210,000$

FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECTSBowman Avenue Sluice Gate 1,986,260$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,986,260$ Bowman Flood Improvements - Upper Pond Resizing 100,000$ 500,000$ 10,000,000$ -$ -$ 10,600,000$

Funding Requirements

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): 2012-2016Project Funding Requirements

City of Rye, New York CIP: 2012-2016 1



Sub-Total Flood Mitigation Projects: 2,086,260$ 500,000$ 10,000,000$ -$ -$ 12,586,260$ General Revenues -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Grants & Aid 1,764,260$ 500,000$ 10,000,000$ -$ -$ 12,264,260$ Debt 322,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 322,000$

SEWER PROJECTSHewlett Avenue Pump Station 347,273$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 347,273$ Brevoort Lane Force Main -$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ Stuyvesant Ave. Pump Station Pump Replacement -$ -$ 120,000$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Dearborn Pump Station Pump Replacement -$ -$ -$ 120,000$ -$ 120,000$ Locust Avenue Sewer Siphon Replacement 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$

Sub-Total Sewer Projects: 497,273$ 300,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ -$ 1,037,273$ General Revenues 228,136$ 150,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ -$ 618,136$

Grants & Aid 191,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 341,000$ Debt 78,137$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 78,137$

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTSAnnual Sidewalk/Curbing Program 60,000$ 60,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 70,000$ 320,000$ Annual Street Resurfacing 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 2,500,000$ Boston Post Road Retaining Wall 35,000$ -$ 480,000$ -$ -$ 515,000$ Theodore Fremd/Blind Brook Retaining Wall 1,400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,400,000$ Purchase Street Roundabout -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$ BPR Repaving -$ 1,000,000$ -$ 1,150,000$ -$ 2,150,000$ CBD - Purchase Street Reconstruction 50,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,050,000$ CBD - Smith Street Reconstruction 30,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ 480,000$ CBD - Elm/Smith Intersection improvement 20,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ 220,000$ CBD Traffic Signal - Fremd/Purdy/Purchase 275,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Locust Avenue Bridge -$ 80,000$ 1,720,000$ -$ -$ 1,800,000$ Nature Center Bridge Reconstruction -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$ Orchard Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation -$ -$ -$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ Central Avenue Bridge Reconstruction 1,800,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,800,000$ MTA Parking Lot Improvements -$ -$ -$ 75,000$ 2,575,000$ 2,650,000$ First/Second St. Parking Lot Improvement -$ 75,000$ -$ -$ -$ 75,000$ School/Purdy Parking Lot (Car Park 5) -$ -$ -$ 650,000$ -$ 650,000$ Milton Cemetery Bridge 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,000$




Street Light Replacement 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 5 Corners Intersection Study -$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ Fireman's Memorial Intersection Study -$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ Osborn School Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$

Sub-Total Transportation Projects: 4,460,000$ 3,365,000$ 3,315,000$ 2,620,000$ 3,175,000$ 16,935,000$ General Revenues 565,000$ 1,430,000$ 1,450,000$ 2,260,000$ 315,000$ 6,020,000$

Grants & Aid 3,535,000$ 285,000$ 1,385,000$ 360,000$ 2,860,000$ 8,425,000$ Debt 360,000$ 1,650,000$ 480,000$ -$ -$ 2,490,000$

RECREATION PROJECTSExpand Maintenance Garage -$ -$ -$ -$ 145,000$ 145,000$ Gagliardo Park Restrooms & Park Improvements 112,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 112,000$ Replace Upper Picnic Shelter and Pad -$ -$ -$ -$ 70,000$ 70,000$ Recreation Park Improvements -$ -$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ 3,000,000$ Nursery Field Rehabilitation -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ 450,000$ Disbrow Park Drainage Improvements -$ -$ -$ 1,600,000$ -$ 1,600,000$ Damiano Center HVAC 28,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,200$ Disbrow Park Landscape and Signage Improvements -$ -$ -$ 19,500$ -$ 19,500$ Upgrade Tennis Lighting -$ -$ -$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$

Sub-Total Recreation Projects: 140,200$ -$ 3,000,000$ 1,799,500$ 665,000$ 5,604,700$ General Revenues 140,200$ -$ -$ 19,500$ 215,000$ 374,700$

Grants & Aid -$ -$ 3,000,000$ 1,600,000$ 450,000$ 5,050,000$ Debt -$ -$ -$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$

TOTAL ALL PROJECTS: 7,560,733$ 4,377,000$ 16,772,000$ 7,036,500$ 4,235,000$ 39,981,233$ Total General Revenues 1,100,336$ 1,792,000$ 1,907,000$ 2,546,500$ 925,000$ 8,270,836$

Total Grants & Aid 5,490,260$ 935,000$ 14,385,000$ 2,310,000$ 3,310,000$ 26,430,260$ Total Debt 970,137$ 1,650,000$ 480,000$ 2,180,000$ -$ 5,280,137$


General Grants TotalCapital Project Name Revenues Debt & Aid Sources

BUILDING PROJECTSPolice/Court Renovation Study 35,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ 2,035,000$ City Hall - Carpet & Floor Replacement 65,000$ -$ -$ 65,000$ City Hall - Fan Coil Units 48,000$ -$ -$ 48,000$ City Hall - Hanging Ceiling Replacement 75,000$ -$ -$ 75,000$ City Hall - HVAC Air Handler Replacement 220,000$ -$ -$ 220,000$ DPW - Fuel Tank Replacement 185,000$ -$ -$ 185,000$ Nature Center Bathrooms 20,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ Interior Paint - Firehouses 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ DPW Roof Replacement 80,000$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Sub-Total Building Projects: 778,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ 2,778,000$

DRAINAGE PROJECTSLaSalle Avenue Drain 150,000$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Forest to Stonycrest Road Drain 35,000$ -$ 350,000$ 385,000$ Old Milton Road Drainage Improvement -$ 210,000$ -$ 210,000$ Red Maple Swamp Drainage Study 15,000$ -$ -$ 15,000$ Hix Park Drainage Study 20,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ Colby Avenue Drainage 120,000$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Ellsworth Road Drainage 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Martin Road Drainage 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ Sub-Total Drainage Projects: 480,000$ 210,000$ 350,000$ 1,040,000$

FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECTSBowman Avenue Sluice Gate -$ 322,000$ 1,664,260$ 1,986,260$

Funding Sources

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): 2012-2016Project Funding Sources



Funding Sources

Bowman Flood Improvements - Upper Pond Resizing -$ -$ 10,600,000$ 10,600,000$ Sub-Total Flood Mitigation Projects: -$ 322,000$ 12,264,260$ 12,586,260$

SEWER PROJECTSHewlett Avenue Pump Station 78,136$ 78,137$ 191,000$ 347,273$ Brevoort Lane Force Main 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 300,000$ Stuyvesant Ave. Pump Station Pump Replacement 120,000$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Dearborn Pump Station Pump Replacement 120,000$ -$ -$ 120,000$ Locust Avenue Sewer Siphon Replacement 150,000$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Sub-Total Sewer Projects: 618,136$ 78,137$ 341,000$ 1,037,273$

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTSAnnual Sidewalk/Curbing Program 320,000$ -$ -$ 320,000$ Annual Street Resurfacing 1,075,000$ -$ 1,425,000$ 2,500,000$ Boston Post Road Retaining Wall 35,000$ 480,000$ -$ 515,000$ Theodore Fremd/Blind Brook Retaining Wall 100,000$ -$ 1,300,000$ 1,400,000$ Purchase Street Roundabout -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ BPR Repaving 2,150,000$ -$ -$ 2,150,000$ CBD - Purchase Street Reconstruction 50,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ 1,050,000$ CBD - Smith Street Reconstruction 30,000$ 450,000$ -$ 480,000$ CBD - Elm/Smith Intersection improvement 20,000$ 200,000$ -$ 220,000$ CBD Traffic Signal - Fremd/Purdy/Purchase 55,000$ -$ 220,000$ 275,000$ Locust Avenue Bridge 1,200,000$ -$ 600,000$ 1,800,000$ Nature Center Bridge Reconstruction 30,000$ -$ -$ 30,000$ Orchard Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation 180,000$ -$ -$ 180,000$ Central Avenue Bridge Reconstruction -$ 360,000$ 1,440,000$ 1,800,000$ MTA Parking Lot Improvements -$ -$ 2,650,000$ 2,650,000$ First/Second St. Parking Lot Improvement 75,000$ -$ -$ 75,000$



Funding Sources

School/Purdy Parking Lot (Car Park 5) 650,000$ -$ -$ 650,000$ Milton Cemetery Bridge -$ -$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Street Light Replacement -$ -$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 5 Corners Intersection Study 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ Fireman's Memorial Intersection Study 25,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ Osborn School Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements -$ -$ 200,000$ 200,000$ Sub-Total Transportation Projects: 6,020,000$ 2,490,000$ 8,425,000$ 16,935,000$

RECREATION PROJECTSExpand Maintenance Garage 145,000$ -$ -$ 145,000$ Gagliardo Park Restrooms & Park Improvements 112,000$ -$ -$ 112,000$ Replace Upper Picnic Shelter and Pad 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$ Recreation Park Improvements -$ -$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ Nursery Field Rehabilitation -$ -$ 450,000$ 450,000$ Disbrow Park Drainage Improvements -$ -$ 1,600,000$ 1,600,000$ Damiano Center HVAC 28,200$ -$ -$ 28,200$ Disbrow Park Landscape and Signage Improvements 19,500$ -$ -$ 19,500$ Upgrade Tennis Lighting -$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ Sub-Total Recreation Projects: 374,700$ 180,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,604,700$

Total 8,270,836$ 5,280,137$ 26,430,260$ 39,981,233$


Total Revenues Grants TotalRequirements 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Required Fund Balance Debt & Aid Sources

Police Vehicle $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 40,000$ 40,000$ - - 40,000$ DPW Sweeper 1 $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 20,000$ 20,000$ - - 20,000$ DPW Truck 19 $ 170,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 170,000$ 170,000$ - - 170,000$ DPW Truck 5 $ - $ 170,000 $ - $ - $ - 170,000$ 170,000$ - - 170,000$ DPW 3/4 Ton Roller & Trailer $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - 60,000$ 60,000$ - - 60,000$ DPW Truck 23 $ - $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ - 65,000$ 65,000$ - - 65,000$ DPW Truck 2 $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - 60,000$ 60,000$ - - 60,000$ DPW Truck 6 $ - $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - 40,000$ 40,000$ - - 40,000$ DPW Truck 16 $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - 35,000$ 35,000$ - - 35,000$ DPW Truck 22 $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - 30,000$ 30,000$ - - 30,000$ DPW Truck 9 $ - $ 170,000 $ - $ - $ - 170,000$ 170,000$ - - 170,000$ DPW Trailer for CAT 902 $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - 50,000$ 50,000$ - - 50,000$ DPW Car 82 $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - 35,000$ 35,000$ - - 35,000$ DPW Stump Grinder $ - $ 55,000 $ - $ - $ - 55,000$ 55,000$ - - 55,000$ DPW Truck 32 $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - 150,000$ 150,000$ - - 150,000$ DPW Chipper $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - 50,000$ 50,000$ - - 50,000$ DPW Truck 26 $ - $ - $ 180,000 $ - $ - 180,000$ 180,000$ - - 180,000$ DPW Truck 24 $ - $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - 35,000$ 35,000$ - - 35,000$ DPW Loader $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - 150,000$ 150,000$ - - 150,000$ DPW Truck 18 $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - 150,000$ 150,000$ - - 150,000$ DPW Truck 17 $ - $ - $ - $ 90,000 $ - 90,000$ 90,000$ - - 90,000$ DPW Truck 1 $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - 75,000$ 75,000$ - - 75,000$ DPW Truck 7 $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - 75,000$ 75,000$ - - 75,000$ DPW Truck 21 $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - 150,000$ 150,000$ - - 150,000$ DPW Sweeper 2 $ - $ - $ - $ 160,000 $ - 160,000$ 160,000$ - - 160,000$ DPW Truck 14 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 $ - 30,000$ 30,000$ - - 30,000$ DPW Super P Salter $ - $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 30,000$ 30,000$ - - 30,000$ DPW Loader $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 150,000$ 150,000$ - - 150,000$ DPW Truck 15 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 65,000$ 65,000$ - - 65,000$ DPW Loader $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 180,000 180,000$ 180,000$ - - 180,000$ DPW Loader $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 125,000 125,000$ 125,000$ - - 125,000$ DPW Garbage Trucks $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 980,000 980,000$ 980,000$ - - 980,000$ DPW Truck 28 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 30,000$ 30,000$ - - 30,000$ DPW Truck 20 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 40,000$ 40,000$ - - 40,000$ DPW Truck 27 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ - - 35,000$ DPW Truck 90 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 25,000$ 25,000$ - - 25,000$ Buildings Staff Vehicle $ 22,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 22,000$ 22,000$ - - 22,000$ REC Staff $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 25,000$ 25,000$ - - 25,000$ REC Field Conditioner $ 16,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 16,000$ 16,000$ - - 16,000$ REC 12-Passenger Bus $ - $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ - 65,000$ 65,000$ - - 65,000$ REC 10' Riding Mower $ - $ 56,000 $ - $ - $ - 56,000$ 56,000$ - - 56,000$ REC Gator $ - $ 13,000 $ - $ - $ - 13,000$ 13,000$ - - 13,000$ REC Staff $ - $ 32,000 $ - $ - $ - 32,000$ 32,000$ - - 32,000$ REC Leaf Vac $ - $ 4,200 $ - $ - $ - 4,200$ 4,200$ - - 4,200$ REC Wood Chipper $ - $ 2,500 $ - $ - $ - 2,500$ 2,500$ - - 2,500$ REC Turf Sweeper $ - $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - 15,000$ 15,000$ - - 15,000$ REC 20' Trailer $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - 5,000$ 5,000$ - - 5,000$ Total Requirements 293,000$ 962,700$ 715,000$ 595,000$ 1,645,000$ 4,210,700$ 4,210,700$ -$ -$ 4,210,700$

Funding Sources

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): 2012-2016Vehicles and Equipment Funding Requirments and Sources



Section III: Project Worksheets

Building Projects

Capital Improvement Program 2012-2016

City of Rye, New York 1

Project Name: Police/Court Renovation Study

Project Type: Building Department: Police

Project Priority: High Project Start Date: 2012 Project End Date: 2015

Project Description: The Office of Court Administration (OCA) has mandated an upgrade of the Rye City Court. The existing Police Department lacks operational and security needs and will require mechanical upgrades in the future. This architectural study would evaluate the cost and service impact of renovating/expanding the existing 13,000 square foot building on McCullough Place. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $35,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $2,500,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $2,035,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Debt $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000

Project Need/Issues: Finding suitable sites to accommodate a 25,000 to 30,000 square foot police/court facility is difficult and very expensive with some estimates ranging between $17M and $25M, excluding property acquisition. With the anticipated sale of 1037 BPR (which was deemed to not be a suitable site for a police/court facility in the JCJ study) the only viable remaining option is to improve the existing building. The purpose of this study would be to have an architect prepare preliminary drawings, floor plans and cost estimates of expanding/modifying the existing building to address deficiencies identified by the Office of Court Administration and Police Department. Bond funding would likely be required for this project.



Project Name: City Hall – Carpet & Floor Replacement

Project Type: Building Department: Public Works

Project Priority: Moderate Project Start Date: 2015 Project End Date: 2015

Project Description: Replace existing cork flooring in Council Chambers originally installed in 1964 and replace carpeting. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $65,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $65,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $65,000 Project Need/Issues: The cork flooring in the City Hall Council Chambers is original to the building and has stains and burn marks. This project encompasses floor replacement, as well as carpet replacement in selected offices. This project has been deferred since 2009 and is proposed to occur following the replacement of City Hall’s hanging ceiling tiles, a project proposed for 2013. Operating Cost Considerations: No significant operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: City Hall Fan Coil Units



Project Description: Replace the individual fan coil window units in City Hall Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $48,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $48,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $48,000 Project Need/Issues: Each room in City Hall contains a separate fan unit that provides hot and coil air. Most units are running on their original 1964 motors and piping. Several units on the 3rd floor no longer are operational, and their parts have been used for failing units throughout the building. In the proposed project, units will be gradually replaced. The units, in conjunction with the air handling system, are necessary to maintaining the livability of the building. Operating Cost Considerations: When the units fail, not only is heating and air conditioning lost, but the broken units leak, staining carpets, ceilings, and walls. This project is in keeping with the suggestions made by energy audits of the facility since new motors are more energy efficient.



Project Name: City Hall – Hanging Ceiling Replacement



Project Description: The project calls for the replacement of hanging ceiling tiles throughout City Hall. The ceiling was originally installed in 1964 and, over time, has shifted. Tiles are cracked or have fallen. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $75,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $75,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $75,000 Project Need/Issues: The existing 45 year-old ceiling is in a deteriorated condition and is difficult to maintain. The project has been deferred since 2009. The Ceiling would be replaced before the floor is replaced (2015).

Operating Cost Considerations: No significant operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: City Hall – HVAC Air Handler Replacement



Project Description: This project calls for the replacement of the air handlers in City Hall, located on the fourth floor and in the Boiler Room. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $20,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $200,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $220,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability

Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $120,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $220,000 Project Need/Issues: Although portions of the City Hall HVAC system have been replaced, the air handling system is original, 47 years old with equipment located on the fourth floor (2 units) and in the Boiler Room (3 units.) Phase I would involve the replacement of the 4th floor units piece by piece, increasing the cost, for the building was constructed around the units originally. Phase II involves replacement of the Boiler Room units, piece by piece. The cost is based on an estimate provided by Atlantic Westchester, the HVAC contractors. As the air handlers provide air movement for City Hall, the facility can not be heated or cooled without their replacement. NYSERDA grant is a potential funding source. Operating Cost Considerations: The 4th floor units have been repaired numerous times since 2005 and problems still persist. Replacement parts are difficult to find and expensive because of the advanced age of the units. In addition, the system is not operating efficiently. Repair and energy costs are expected to be reduced with a new system.



Project Name: DPW – Fuel Tank Replacement



Project Description: The project calls for the removal of the underground fuel tanks at the DPW fueling depot and their replacement with above-ground tanks. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $20,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $165,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $185,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,000 $185,000 Project Need/Issues: Remove the underground gas and diesel tanks and replace them with above-ground tanks. The present fuel depot at Disbrow Park has two 4,000-gallon underground tanks. These tanks must be tested annually for leaks and, if leaks are detected, repairs and difficult and expensive. Operating Cost Considerations: If the tanks develop leaks, the City could incur considerable expense in cleanup costs and potential fines. The tanks were last repaired in 2004 and are manually inspected and tested.



Project Name: Nature Center Bathrooms

Project Type: Building Department: City Manager


Project Description: This project involves construction of ADA-compliant bathrooms at the Nature Center. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $20,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $20,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Project Need/Issues: Existing bathrooms have deteriorated and require renovation. Like all public buildings new facilities must be accessible to comply with ADA requirements.

Operating Cost Considerations: No change in operating costs is anticipated.



Project Name: Interior Paint – Firehouses


Project Priority: Low Project Start Date: 2015 Project End Date: 2015

Project Description: This project calls for the repainting of public areas of both Rye firehouses. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $50,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $50,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 Project Need/Issues: By the year 2015, both firehouses will show deterioration to the paint in public areas of the facilities. If the use of Zolotone-brand paint is required, the price will increase by at least $20,000 for each building. Operating Cost Considerations: No change in operating costs is anticipated.



Project Name: DPW Roof Replacement



Project Description: Replacement of the roofs above the “old” garage and the compactor building in Disbrow Park. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $80,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $80,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 Project Need/Issues: Both roofs are in need of replacement and presently have several leaks. The roof leaks deteriorate the exterior brickwork and interior wiring. The compactor roof is beyond patching. The City is exploring the feasibility of solar arrays on the completed roof to help offset the energy consumption at the facility. Potential grant funding might also help subsidize the necessary roof repairs. Operating Cost Considerations: These buildings are used primarily for storage of the City’s heavy duty trucks and large pieces of equipment – all of which are extremely expensive and must be housed indoors to prevent deterioration and vandalism.

Drainage Projects



Project Name: LaSalle Avenue Drainage

Project Type: Drainage Department: Engineering


Project Description: The project involves installing catch basins and drain lines to address flooding concerns on LaSalle Avenue. Existing drainage facilities are inadequately sized to handle stormwater runoff from major rain events. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $150,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $150,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 Project Need/Issues: $10,000 was funded to conduct a drainage analysis and design for stormwater improvements on LaSalle south of Glen Oaks. Final cost depends on design and scope but could range between $35,000 to $150,000. Preliminarily lower cost alternative appears more cost effective, but only provides improvements in small storm events. Operating Cost Considerations: No significant operational cost increases are anticipated.



Project Name: Forest to Stonycrest Road Drain



Project Description: Replacement/relocation/modification of drain extending from Forest Avenue to outfall on Stonycrest Road. Project includes $35,000 to fund engineering design/alternatives analysis (2014). Preliminary construction cost of $350,000 will vary depending on final design (2015). Project must coordinate with Forest Avenue paving project. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $35,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $350,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $385,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $35,000 Grants and Aid $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $0 $350,000

Project Need/Issues: Project would eliminate or reduce ponding on Forest Avenue, which has resulted in damage to adjacent properties and claims against the City. Existing drain line extends from catch basins at the Forest Ave./Boulder Rd. intersection through private properties to an outfall on Stonycrest. An alternative route for this pipe is being considered since there is no drainage easement through these private properties. There is considerable bedrock in the area which contributes to high construction costs. Operating Cost Considerations: New drain line will increase maintenance costs and responsibilities, but reduce flooding damage to area properties during seasonal rain events.



Project Name: Old Milton Road Drainage Improvement


Project Priority: High Project Start Date: 2011 (Currently in-design) Project End Date: 2012

Project Description: This project would install new City drain lines to divert stormwater and reduce flooding impacts at Milton Harbor House. Attorneys for the Harbor House have requested the improvement to preemptively avoid potential stormwater damage claims against the City. The project was funded in the 2010 budget and debt was issued. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $15,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $180,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $15,000 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $210,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Debt $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,000 Project Need/Issues: Project may require easement for new drain line on Milton Harbor House property. Existing easements/drainage lines would be abandoned.

Operating Cost Considerations: Project would reduce/eliminate stormwater damage claims against the City. Existing drainage operational and maintenance responsibilities would remain unchanged.



Project Name: Red Maple Swamp Drainage Study



Project Description: This project will fund consulting engineering services to consider improvements to the Red Maple Swamp area that could address flooding/drainage concerns of area residents. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $15,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $15,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000 Project Need/Issues: Preliminary analysis by City Engineering Department suggests that the Red Maple Swamp, located between Intervale Place and Playland Parkway, may be a challenging location to provide cost-effective flood mitigation improvements, however there may be some potential modest drainage enhancements. Existing undeveloped private properties in the area should be acquired. Operating Cost Considerations: No change in operating costs is anticipated.



Project Name: Hix Park Drainage Study



Project Description: This project would fund an engineering study to examine the feasibility of redirecting drainage from a portion of the Hix Park neighborhood towards Rye Golf and Milton Harbor. Preliminary in-house studies suggest that a new drain line would alleviate localized flooding concerns. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $20,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $20,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 Project Need/Issues: Portions of the Hix Park neighborhood are subject to flooding (Chamberlain, Hickory, White Birch, Mildred, Bennett) because of undersized drainage lines. The existing drainage system extends north towards Blind Brook at Disbrow Park at a flat level which contributes to flooding. The study would examine the feasibility and cost of an alternative drainage route through Rye Golf towards Milton Harbor, which has a steep pitch and potential for improved drainage conditions. Operating Cost Considerations: None.



Project Name: Colby Avenue Drainage



Project Description: This project was first proposed in 2008-2012 CIP and includes replacement of existing undersized and improperly pitched pipe extending through yards on Colby Avenue. Replacement pipe will address flooding conditions in resident yards. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $120,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $120,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 Project Need/Issues: Area residents desire a reduction in flooding, however improvements will require disturbance to private properties to replace an existing undersized pipe.

Operating Cost Considerations: No significant operational cost increases are anticipated.



Project Name: Ellsworth Street Drainage



Project Description: This project involves the installation of a drain line and catch basins on Ellsworth Street. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $8,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $78,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $4,000 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $90,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 Project Need/Issues: Currently, Ellsworth Street lacks any drainage system. Property owners discharge sump pumps and roof leaders to the street, creating an icing condition in winter months, in addition to complaints from other street residents. Project effectiveness requires further review, as the area is very flat and any discharge point in Blind Brook would be impacted by tidal conditions. Operating Cost Considerations: Increased maintenance costs associated with new drainage line and catch basins.



Project Name: Martin Road Drainage



Project Description: Replace a portion of existing City drain line extending from the end of Martin Road to pipe terminus. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $50,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $50,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 Project Need/Issues: Existing pipe is damaged and requires replacement. Project would require the removal of a significant mature tree at the end of Martin Road, but would improve the conveyance of stormwater runoff from the area and reduce flooding conditions on area roads and properties.

Operating Cost Considerations: None.

Flood Mitigation Projects



Project Name: Bowman Avenue Sluice Gate

Project Type: Flooding Department: Engineering

Project Priority: Urgent Project Start Date: 2010 (currently in-design) Project End Date: 2012

Project Description: Project would retrofit the existing Bowman Avenue spillway with an automated sluice. A new maintenance access road is also proposed. Most of the project is funded from previously spent funds and grants and aid from a variety of State and County sources. This $2.22 M project requires additional funding of $321,840 to meet the local match and begin construction in 2012. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $322,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $1,664,260 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $1,986,260 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt $322,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $322,000

Grants & Aid $1,664,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,664,260 Total $1,986,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,986,260

Project Need/Issues: The project would reduce flood elevations on Blind Brook for major storm events. Properties between the Bowman Avenue Spillway and I-95 would benefit from the project. Numerous City studies and plans have recommended flood mitigation improvements at the City-owned Bowman Avenue property. The Village of Rye Brook is also contributing approximately $136,000 to the project. A $400,000 Grant has been obtained from the State. The City has already spent $225,000 in design studies and engineering (which costs are not reflected above). Approximately $1.128 M in funding is anticipated from Westchester County. Operating Cost Considerations: Operational and maintenance of the sluice costs have not been quantified.



Project Name: Bowman Flood Improvements - Upper Pond Resizing

Project Type: Flooding Department: Engineering


Project Description: Resizing of upper pond to increase flood storage capacity of City-owned property upstream of the Bowman Avenue Dam. Costs include conceptual design/site investigation (2012), detailed engineering and permitting (2013) and construction (2014 or later). Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $100,000 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $500,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $10,000,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $10,600,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants & Aid $100,000 $500,000 $10,000,000 $0 $0 $10,600,000 Project Need/Issues: Engineering studies show that the resizing of upper pond could reduce flood elevations for major storm events between the Bowman Avenue Spillway and I-95. Source of funding is not known, but would likely be a federal grant.

Operating Cost Considerations: Operating and maintenance costs are considered minimal.

Sewer Projects



Project Name: Hewlett Avenue Pump Station

Project Type: Sewer Department: Engineering

Project Priority: Urgent Project Start Date: 2011 Project End Date: 2012

Project Description: This high-priority project would replace existing pump and force main associated with Hewlett Avenue pump station. Construction of the force main was completed last summer, which was funded from general revenues. In 2012, the pump station improvements will be made. Approximately $454,000 is currently funded for this project, including $191,000 from EPA Grant. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $24,025 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $323,248 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $347,273 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $78,136 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,136 Grants & Aid (EPA) $191,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $191,000

Debt $78,137 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,137 Total $347,273 $0 $0 $0 $0 $347,273

Project Need/Issues: Pumps and force main require replacement due to age and operational inefficiencies. Consulting engineers recommended that the existing force main extending along Hewlett Avenue from Forest Avenue to Milton Road. The force mains were replaced last summer. The 2012 project would replace the existing pumps and provide additional confined space and improve worker safety. Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would remain unchanged or be slightly lower with newer more reliable pumps and force main. Improved pump station capacity and reliability during high-demand events reduces potential release of sewage into LI Sound thereby reducing potential fines to the City.



Project Name: Brevoot Lane Force Main



Project Description: This project would replace existing force main associated with Brevoort Lane pump station. Design is expected to be completed in 2011. Construction is anticipated in 2013. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $300,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $300,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Grants & Aid $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000

Project Need/Issues: Force main requires replacement. Existing force main material is deteriorating and is approaching its design life. Consulting engineers are considering a variety of replacement options.

Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would remain unchanged or be slightly lower with newer more reliable force main.



Project Name: Stuyvesant Avenue Pump Station Pump Replacement



Project Description: The project would replace pumps at Stuyvesant Avenue, as they are close to the end of their useful life and, upon failure, will require immediate contingency funding. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $120,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $120,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $120,000 Project Need/Issues: Pumps are nearing the end of their useful life.

Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would remain unchanged or be slightly lower with newer more reliable pumps.



Project Name: Dearborn Pump Station Pump Replacement



Project Description: The project would replace pumps at Dearborn Avenue, as they are close to the end of their useful life and, upon failure, will require immediate contingency funding. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $120,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $120,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $120,000 Project Need/Issues: Pumps are nearing the end of their useful life.

Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would remain unchanged or be slightly lower with newer more reliable pumps.



Project Name: Locust Avenue Sewer Siphon Replacement



Project Description: Abandon the “siphon” under the Locust Avenue bridge and construct a new sewer line with a more reliable, straight, gravity flow sewer line to the County trunk in Blind Brook. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $25,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $125,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $150,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues/Debt $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Project Need/Issues: Presently the sanitary sewer serving the CBD must exit through a “siphon” located at the Locust Avenue bridge. At this location, the 8” pipe divides into two 4” pipes to cross under the brook to a City manhole. From there, it connects to a 36” County trunk line. The construction of the smaller pipes frequently causes problems and must be cleaned of grease and debris to keep the sewer operational. The pipes are approximately 100 years old, and one of the 4” pipes is partially compromised with an unknown obstruction. The proposed project involves the installation of a new manhole and one, large pipe slightly upstream of the brook to connect directly to the trunk line on the other side. Operating Cost Considerations: At this time, one of the 4” pipes is already blocked, and the other pipe requires weekly cleaning and maintenance. If the second pipe becomes blocked, the entire CBD would suffer the loss of sanitary sewer service and there would be significant expense to implement emergency sewer provisions.

Transportation Projects



Project Name: Annual Sidewalk/Curbing Program

Project Type: Transportation Department: Engineering


Project Description: Funds the replacement and repair of sidewalks that are City responsibility (i.e. not funded by abutting private property owner). Program also includes funding for curbs to address erosion, roadway protection or drainage conditions. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $320,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $320,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $60,000 $60,000 $65,000 $65,000 $70,000 $320,000 Project Need/Issues: The program supports the maintenance of the City’s 38.68 miles of sidewalk. There has been increasing public demand to improve sidewalk conditions in the City, particularly around schools. The City will potentially fund sidewalk and crosswalk improvements as recommended by the Shared Roadways Committee June 2011 Report. Operating Cost Considerations: No additional costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Annual Street Resurfacing



Project Description: Resurfacing of City Streets and roads as determined by the City Engineer and the City's Pavement Management System (PMS). Approximately half of annual funds are from NYS CHIPS state aid program. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $2,500,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $2,500,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $215,000 $215,000 $215,000 $215,000 $215,000 $1,075,000 Grants & Aid (CHIPS) $285,000 $285,000 $285,000 $285,000 $285,000 $1,425,000

Total $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 Project Need/Issues: The program supports the maintenance of the City’s 51.63 miles of roadway. New York State may reduce its CHIPS contribution due to budget cuts. This CIP assumes continued CHIPS funding levels in 2012-2016. Forest Avenue paving and re-striping, as recommended in the Shared Roadways Committee report of June, 2011 will be considered when the pavement condition index reaches a recommended paving level. That level is expected in 2014 or 2015. Operating Cost Considerations: No additional costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Boston Post Road Retaining Wall

Project Type: Transportation – Right-Of-Way Management Department: Engineering


Project Description: The rock wall/embankment on Boston Post Road opposite Purdy Avenue has been shedding rocks, compromising slope and wall stability. The wall straddles private and City right-of-way property lines. At this time, project cost estimates range from $350,000 to $515,000. Assuming the higher range, this project anticipates $35,000 in 2012 for engineering and $500,000 in 2013 for construction. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $35,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $450,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $30,000 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $515,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Debt: $0 $0 $480,000 $0 $0 $480,000 Total: $35,000 $0 $480,000 $0 $0 $515,000

Project Need/Issues: Wall/slope failure appears imminent in some locations and has already required approximately $60,000 in expenses associated with the implementation of the concrete barriers to prevent damage to the City right-of-way. The project requires a detailed survey of property lines. If the wall is determined to be on private property then slope/construction easements from abutting properties would be required to reconstruct the wall. A unified wall approach similar to that completed on BPR would likely provide the greatest functional and aesthetic benefit, however more detailed engineering is required to determine whether the existing wall can be salvaged or a complete reconstruction is required. Operating Cost Considerations: Minimal annual operating costs are anticipated; however the City would assume capital expenses associated future repairs or reconstruction of the wall after the end of its useful life.



Project Name: Theodore Fremd/Blind Brook Retaining Wall


Project Priority: Urgent Project Start Date: 2010 (Currently in-design) Project End Date: 2012

Project Description: Project would replace retaining wall on Blind Brook adjacent to Theodore Fremd Avenue. The wall was significantly damaged in 2007 flooding and requires replacement to protect adjacent roadway and City parking area. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $300,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $1,100,000 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $1,400,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Grants and Aid $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000

Project Need/Issues: The project design is completed and under review by NYSDOT. The project requires a slight relocation of the wall and has numerous utility conflicts that must be coordinated including a major County sewer line and a ConEd gas transmission line. The project is not eligible for FEMA reconstruction funds due to the classification of the roadway, but is being funded by a more rigorous and time-consuming NYSDOT grant, which requires a 20% local match. Operating Cost Considerations: No significant increases in operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Purchase Street Roundabout


Project Priority: High Project Start Date: 2011 (currently in-design) Project End Date: 2014

Project Description: The project would eliminate existing blinking traffic signals at the Purchase/High/Ridge/Wappanocca intersection with roundabout. The roundabout would provide safety and environmental benefits over existing condition and would provide for an aesthetic amenity to one of Rye’s “gateways”. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $500,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $500,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants & Aid $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 Project Need/Issues: July 2007 BFJ feasibility report recommends a roundabout in lieu of a traffic signal at the intersection. Survey of area is completed and design is underway. Westchester County is anticipated to fund the project in exchange for City acceptance of County roads. Operating Cost Considerations: Energy costs would be eliminated. Some costs for landscape and roundabout maintenance are anticipated.



Project Name: Boston Post Road Repaving



Project Description: Project includes repaving Boston Post Road from the Port Chester line to Parsons Street. The project was previously targeted for Federal Stimulus, but was not funded. Boston Post Road has already been repaved from then Mamaroneck line to Rye Golf, and 2011 repaving will include the Playland Parkway entry ramp through Parsons. Sections of Boston Post Road range in PCI index rating from 66 to 100. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $2,150,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $2,150,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenue $0 $1,000,000 $0 $1,150,000 $0 $2,150,000 Project Need/Issues: Roadway requires paving in sections. Alternative funding may be available to subsidize project costs. Sections of this road require significant amount of curb replacement and sub-base work.

Operating Cost Considerations: No significant increases in operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: CBD - Purchase Street Reconstruction



Project Description: Project involves the reconstruction (including paved surface and base) and curb replacement, where necessary. Other improvements as noted in the 2009 CBD Planning and Streetscape Study should also be considered. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $50,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $1,000,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $1,050,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Debt $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000

Project Need/Issues: Purchase Street has a below average score (PCI=64) in the City's Pavement Management System and requires reconstruction. Project is consistent with 2009 CBD Capital Planning and Streetscape Study, which recommends a variety of pedestrian safety and other improvements. Project must coordinate with all other CBD traffic projects. A bond referendum for this and all CBD projects could be an alternative funding source. Operating Cost Considerations: No major increases in operating costs are anticipated with this project.



Project Name: CBD – Smith Street Reconstruction



Project Description: Project involves the reconstruction (including paved surface and base) and curb replacement, where necessary. Other improvements as noted in the 2009 CBD Planning and Streetscape Study should also be considered. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $30,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $450,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $480,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 Debt $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $450,000

Project Need/Issues: Smith Street is the second lowest scoring street in the City's Pavement Management System. Street reconstruction is required and has been proposed for many years. Project must coordinate with other CBD transportation projects, particularly Elm/Smith Intersection Improvement. Proposing preparation of design/bid specifications in 2012. A bond referendum for this and all CBD projects could be an alternative funding source. Operating Cost Considerations: Current maintenance and repair costs would be reduced.



Project Name: CBD – Elm/Smith Intersection Improvement



Project Description: The 2009 CBD Capital Planning and Streetscape Study recommends replacing existing signal with stop signs and other traffic calming measures including changes in intersection paving material and new crosswalks. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $20,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $200,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $220,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Debt $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000

Project Need/Issues: Design and installation of signals at this intersection was funded as part of 2007 Budget, but deferred/suspended after April 2007 floods. In August 2010 the City installed stop sign control at this intersection to test its effectiveness as an alternative to a traffic signal. The trial has been successful and now requires a permanent improvement similar to that implemented at the Locust/Purchase intersection. Project must coordinate with Smith Street Reconstruction project. A bond referendum for this and all CBD projects could be an alternative funding source. Operating Cost Considerations: Project would eliminate existing traffic signal maintenance and operation costs.



Project Name: Purchase/Fremd & Purdy Signal Replacement

Project Type: Transportation – Traffic Control Department: Engineering


Project Description: The 2009 CBD Capital Planning and Streetscape Study recommends replacing traffic signals at this intersection to meet NYSDOT requirements and adding a turning lane on Theodore Fremd Avenue to reduce intersection delays. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $15,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $410,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $425,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues/Debt: $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Grants & Aid: $220,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $220,000

Total: $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 Project Need/Issues: Project was originally funded as part of 2007 Budget, but deferred/suspended after April 2007 floods. Signal design is approximately 50% complete. The existing traffic signals do not meet NYSDOT requirements and increasingly replacement parts are difficult to find. Project would require coordination with Westchester County, which controls Theodore Fremd. A bond referendum for this and all CBD projects could be an alternative funding source. The City has applied for grant funding for this project. The $55,000 in general revenues is the City’s required match for the grant. Operating Cost Considerations: Minimal annual operating costs are anticipated. New traffic signals will use LED technology, which will reduce energy consumption and improve reliability.



Project Name: Locust Avenue Bridge



Project Description: The project would fund $80,000 to study the condition, identify improvement and complete construction plans for Locust Avenue Bridge. Depending on findings of study and prior experience with bridges in this area rehabilitation may be required ($300,000) or a complete reconstruction ($1.8M). The City was recently advised of a possible $600,000 grant towards the completion of this project. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $80,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $1,720,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $1,800,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues $0 $80,000 $1,120,000 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Grants and Aid $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $600,000

Total $0 $80,000 $1,720,000 $0 $0 $1,800,000 Project Need/Issues: Locust Avenue Bridge is over 100 years old and requires repair. Bridge is also historic and may required coordination with NYS Historic Agencies. Existing sewer line/siphon under the bridge abutment is planned to be abandoned, and a new sewer line installed. See Locust Avenue Sewer Siphon Replacement project. Operating Cost Considerations: No increased operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Nature Center Bridge Pressure Grouting



Project Description: Project would renovate the existing Nature Center access bridge over Blind Brook through a 5-year maintenance program. In lieu of full bridge reconstruction, a pressure-grouting program will be applied to the bridge and base to maintain required strength and usability. This action is weather-dependent, with flooding and heavy rain requiring more frequent grouting. The grout is scheduled for application first in Summer 2011, with the next anticipated grouting in 2016. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $30,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $30,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 Project Need/Issues: The existing bridge over Blind Brook was constructed in the 1900's for carriage traffic. In 2008 the bridge received a yellow flag from NYS inspectors, which was corrected with emergency repairs to the bridge abutment. A second yellow flag was issued in April 2009. The historic bridge is the sole source of access to the Nature Center, however other entry methods have been studied and can be engaged in the case of structural failure by the existing bridge. While full bridge reconstruction (as reported in the 2011 CIP) would cost upwards of $1,100,000, pressure grouting will occur every 5 years (potentially more frequently depending on weather patterns) and will permit the continued, safe access to the Nature Center. Operating Cost Considerations: No increased operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Orchard Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation



Project Description: Rehabilitation of Orchard Avenue Bridge over Blind Brook. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $180,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $180,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenue $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $180,000 Project Need/Issues: The bridge over Blind Brook was built in 1926 and has a deficiency rating by the NYS of 4.636. Recently completed reports indicate that the bridge is structural sound, but requires improvements.

Operating Cost Considerations: No increases in operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Central Avenue Bridge Reconstruction



Project Description: Project involves the construction of a new Central Avenue Bridge over Blind Brook, which was damaged in the spring 2007 floods and required removal. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $400,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $1,400,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $1,800,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Debt $360,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 Grants & Aid $1,440,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,440,000

Total $1,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 Project Need/Issues: The Bridge over Blind Brook was severely damaged in 2007 flood and had to be removed. Design is completed and pending NYSDOT review. The project is not eligible for FEMA reconstruction funds, but is being funded by a more rigorous and time-consuming NYSDOT grant, which requires a 20% local match. Operating Cost Considerations: No increases in operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: MTA Parking Lot Improvements



Project Description: The proposed project would repave the parking lot, add sidewalks, lighting, drainage, landscaping and other vehicle and pedestrian safety measures. Project is dependant on Federal funding. If grants are obtained $75,000 in engineering is proposed for 2012 with construction proposed for 2014. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $75,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $2,575,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $2,650,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants & Aid $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $2,575,000 $2,650,000 Project Need/Issues: The City (which does not own the lot, but shares in the parking revenue with the MTA) previously discussed with the MTA possible cost/revenue sharing strategies to implement necessary repairs to the deteriorated lot. The proposed improvements would rehabilitate the lot, which has not been repaved in over 20 years, and implement pedestrian and vehicles safety improvements consistent with a preliminary concept plan prepared by MTA consultants in 2006. Operating Cost Considerations: Some increases in operational costs are anticipated, but could be offset with increases in parking fees, which have remained unchanged for eight years.



Project Name: First/Second Street Parking Lot



Project Description: Project includes the removal of the existing single-head meters in City-owned parking lot in front of Rye Bar/former Bank of New York Property and installation of new Luke pay station. Repaving and striping of parking lot is also required. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $75,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $75,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues/Debt $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Project Need/Issues: Asphalt in the existing parking lot has deteriorated and requires replacement. Improvement of this parking area was shown as part of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Rye Bar and Grill. That plan shows that changes in the pavement striping would potentially add up to three additional parking spaces. Operating Cost Considerations: Replacing the existing single-head meters with a central payment system will reduce maintenance and collection costs and make snow plowing easier.



Project Name: CBD – School/Purdy Parking Lot (Car Park 5)



Project Description: The existing wall surrounding Car Park 5 (corner of School St.& Purdy Ave.) needs to be replaced. In 2008, fencing was secured to the wall exterior to prevent damage from continuing deterioration. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $650,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $650,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grant/Private Partnership $0 $0 $0 $650,000 $0 $650,000 Project Need/Issues: Replacing this nearly 100-year old wall is expensive, requiring $650,000. The City should consider alternative use to a replacement in-kind that advances some additional public need, such as a deck that creates additional parking. Identifying a use for this site, possibly involving a public/private partnership, is the critical first step before committing additional funds to this project. Operating Cost Considerations: Varies depending on final design and use.



Project Name: Milton Cemetery Bridge



Project Description: Replace existing pedestrian bridge in Milton Cemetery. Project has been deferred due to budgetary constraints. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $40,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $40,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants and Aid $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Project Need/Issues: Existing bridge is deteriorated and unusable. Eliminating the bridge and installing an alternative lower cost bridge is not feasible from an historic preservation perspective. The City is seeking donations or some other source to fund this project. Operating Cost Considerations: Continued bridge repair and maintenance responsibilities.



Project Name: Street Light Replacement



Project Description: The project would fund replacement of existing street lights would energy efficient LED bulbs. Project is dependant on NYSERDA grant funding. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $50,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $50,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants and Aid $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Project Need/Issues: Project would reduce operating expenses and advance resource conservation goals.

Operating Cost Considerations: Project would reduce operating costs associated with street lights, which approach $200,000 annually.



Project Name: 5 Corners Intersection Study



Project Description: As recommended by the Shared Roadways Committee June 2011 study, the project would encompass a conceptual study for the 5-way intersection at the conjunction of Grace Church Street, and Midland and Manursing Avenues. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $25,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $25,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 Project Need/Issues: The 5-way intersection at Kelley’s is a hazardous location for pedestrian and drivers. It is unclear who has the right of way, and the crosswalks, as mentioned by the Shared Roadways Committee report, have poor signage. This project would fund the study of future improvements for the site. Operating Cost Considerations: No increases in operational costs are anticipated depending on final design.



Project Name: Fireman’s Memorial Intersection Study



Project Description: As recommended by the Shared Roadways Committee June 2011 study, the project would encompass a conceptual study for the Fireman’s Memorial roundabout located at the intersection of Milton Road and Grace Church and Cross Streets, just south of Cross Street’s intersection with Boston Post Road. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $25,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $25,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000 Project Need/Issues: The roundabout at the Fireman’s Memorial is unique, as it does not function like most roundabouts, with yields that vary by street. This project would fund a study, as proposed by the Shared Roadways Committee in the June 2011 report, to see how best the Memorial could be redesigned “as a proper traffic circle, with improved crosswalks, markings, signage, and signal timing.” Such changes would benefit pedestrians who walk in the area, as well as drivers who are unfamiliar with the roundabout’s current design. Operating Cost Considerations: No increases in operational costs are anticipated.



Project Name: Osborn School Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements



Project Description: The project would provide funding to design and implement additional traffic and pedestrian safety improvement at Osborn School. The school is located at one of the City’s busiest intersections. In August 2010 the City implemented a lane reduction program on BPR (i.e. “diet”), however some are seeking additional improvements. There is no perfect “fix”. Improvements are complicated and involve challenging trade-offs between driver and pedestrian demands for both convenience and safety. Project cost includes the potential installation of a traffic signal and pedestrian crossing at the Sonn Drive/BPR intersection. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $25,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $175,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $200,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants and Aid: $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Project Need/Issues: The project would provide additional measures to improve traffic and pedestrian safety at Osborn School and specifically the Sonn/BPR intersection and potential improvements on Osborn Road to address off-site vehicle queing. The School District is considered a potential source of funds or a grant.

Operating Cost Considerations: There would be an increase in signal maintenance costs to the City. An additional crossing at Sonn Drive may also require the expense of an additional crossing guard.

Recreation Projects



Project Name: Expand Maintenance Garage

Project Type: Recreation Department: Recreation


Project Description: The project involves the construction of a two bay addition with extra tall bay doors. Estimates are based on price per square foot of current construction costs. Cost Estimates 30’ X 40’ Block Building ($100/sq ft) $125,000 Electric fixtures/services 3,500 Design cost (7%) 8,000 Contingency (7%) $ 8,500 $145,000 Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $8,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $137,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $145,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016+ Total

General Revenue: $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 $145,000 Project Need/Issues: The department has motorized equipment that has a current replacement value of approximately $500,000. A number of items can not be housed indoors due to lack of space and is subject to weather and potential vandalism. Operating Cost Considerations: It is anticipated that any increase due to utilities will be met with an equal or greater savings due to benefits of secured, covered equipment and material.



Project Name: Gagliardo Park Restrooms & Park Improvements

Project Type: Building/Facilities – Recreation Department: Recreation


Project Description: Gagliardo Park has seen some upgrade over the past years due to CDBG Grants which replaced the playground and picnic shelter. The restroom facility/storage is in need of a facelift,requiring handicap accessibility, as the park is not staffed. A slightly larger block building (12 X 20) would replace the current facility. Cost would be for a pre-fab building (CXT Concrete Buildings : $62,000 on GSA Contract.) The basketball and volleyball courts need to see similar upgrades, as the pavement is showing age with large cracks. The basketball backboards are old and need replacement. In addition to the volleyball court being divided for other uses, the basketball court would need to be patched and repave approximately 171’ of walkway. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $112,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $112,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $112,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,000 Project Need/Issues: Project is required to improve user safety and level of play. Project would also reduce maintenance costs and ease of facility maintenance. Operating Cost Considerations: More efficient systems would help keep costs down; easier maintenance



Project Name: Upper Picnic Shelter Replacement



Project Description: This project calls for the replacement of the upper picnic shelter at Recreation Park, with the shelter and installation costing $45,000 and its concrete pad costing $25,000 (as per quote from Litchfield Landscape. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $25,000 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $45,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $70,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 Project Need/Issues: The Upper Picnic Shelter is showing signs of age and deterioration. Recent improvements allow this project to be deferred to 2016. Since picnics are the one of the main revenue source for the department, a new, larger and efficient design could increase the number of rentals annually. Improved drainage around the site would also benefit this facility. One of the main revenue sources is from Picnic rental fees. As the shelter deteriorates, it makes it more difficult to attract renters to the facility. Operating Cost Considerations: Initially, decrease cost in maintenance costs for upkeep and repairs



Project Name: Recreation Park Improvements



Project Description: Install turf and lights at Recreation Park. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $100,000 Operational Efficiency Construction $2,900,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $3,000,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants and Aid: $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 Project Need/Issues: A 2011 study prepared by Woodard and Curran Engineers identified the feasibility and cost of installing turf fields, drainage and lights at Recreation Park. The project would extend playing times and meet growing field demands of user groups. Operating Cost Considerations: Turf Fields and lighting will require maintenance (including the cost of a turf field groomer), but would reduce maintenance costs associate with the existing natural turf.



Project Name: Nursery Field Rehabilitation



Project Description: The project proposes to improve drainage conditions at Nursery Field by stripping the existing topsoil and amending it with sand and compost. The field would be crowned and additional drainage measures would be installed. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $50,000 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $0 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $400,000 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $450,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants and Aid: $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $450,000 Project Need/Issues: A 2011 study prepared by Woodard and Curran Engineers identified the feasibility and cost of improving drainage conditions at Nursery Field. These improvements would increase field use, which is currently restricted after rain events. Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would remain unchanged from current conditions.



Project Name: Disbrow Park Improvement



Project Description: The project proposes correcting drainage issues by installing a synthetic turf field in the existing footprint of the athletic facilities. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $1,600,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $1,600,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grants and Aid: $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 Project Need/Issues: A 2011 study prepared by Woodard and Curran Engineers identified the ability to solve drainage issues at Disbrow Park by installing a synthetic turf field. The field would include one baseball field, one softball field, and one soccer field (overlapping the baseball and softball fields.) Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would remain unchanged from current conditions.



Project Name: Damiano Center HVAC



Project Description: The project proposes to replace the existing HVAC system at Damiano Center. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $28,200 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $28,200 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $28,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,200 Project Need/Issues: The existing system is failing and requires replacement. Operating Cost Considerations: Operating costs would reduce with more energy efficient system that require less maintenance.



Project Name: Disbrow Park Landscape and Signage Improvements



Project Description: The project involves providing additional landscaping at City recreation facilities. The area of Recreation Park where the parking lot was expanded needs to be screened and beautified with numerous plantings to create a visual barrier and offer a more attractive surrounding when using the lower end of the park. Trees were removed for the parking lot and should be replaced. Other fields need additional screening to provide neighbors with increased buffer areas. Additional signage is necessary as well. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $19,500 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspection $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $19,500 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

General Revenues: $0 $0 $0 $19,500 $0 $19,500 Project Need/Issues: Project would provide aesthetic enhancements to park facilities and improved screening. Operating Cost Considerations: Additional landscape maintenance would be required by park staff after initial planting. The City will pursue a low maintenance planting program.



Project Name: Upgrade Tennis Lighting



Project Description: Replacement of lighting units at recreation park tennis courts and multi-purpose area. Estimated Project Costs: Project Priority Considerations: Legal/Survey/Due Diligence $0 Deteriorated Facility Site Acquisition $0 Public Safety/Legal Mandate Engineering/Design $0 Systematic Replacement/Operational Efficiency Construction $180,000 Resource Conservation/Environmental Quality Construction Inspect./Other $0 New/Expanded Facility or Program Total $180,000 Consistency with Formal Plans or Policy Funding Availability Sources of Funding: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Debt: $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $180,000 Project Need/Issues: Replacement for efficiency and cost saving measures. Existing tennis lighting is over 25 years old.

Operating Cost Considerations: Systems that allow for multiple light and energy levels can provide considerable energy savings. These systems allow activities with different lighting needs to share a facility, without wasting energy by providing excessive lighting for activities that don’t require it.

2012-2016 capital improvement plan

Documents